Pro-Life Feminist voting for Pro-Abortion Politician?


The concept that people should be required to buy health coverage was fleshed out more than two decades ago by a number of conservative economists, embraced by scholars at conservative research groups, including the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, and championed, for a time, by Republicans in the Senate.

Also largely lauded by Newt Gingrich before implemented by Mitt Romney as Governor.

just an fyi


Democrat Senators voted 43 to 4 against a bill that would have removed federal funding for so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration policy. Another Democrat, especially Beta O’Rourke, (who said that he wanted to de-criminalize illegal immigration) would add to the open-borders crowd.
And, a vote for O’Rourke would be a vote for Chuck Schumer. If the Democrats win a majority in the Senate, we already know that they will prevent President Trump from continuing to appoint great Constitutional Judges, and everything else that requires Senate approval. “Resist” is the Democrats’ motto.


Ted Cruz is ranked a very high 5th among the 100 Senators by the Conservative Review’s Liberty Score as the result of his votes in the Senate (link below):
Ted Cruz is rated 100% pro-life by the National Right To Life Committee (please see link below for Cruz and ANY Congressperson):
Ted Cruz has always fought strongly for religious liberty, including winning cases at the Supreme Court as Solicitor General for Texas.


As always, Monte, great point.


Why should we vote for socialists (like O’Rourke) when America is doing so well under our current economic system? The U.S. stands head and shoulders above the rest of the world. More than half (56%) of Americans were high income by the global standard, living on more than $50 per day in 2011, the latest year that could be analyzed with the available data. Another 32% were upper-middle income. In other words, almost nine-in-ten Americans had a standard of living that was above the global middle-income standard. Only 7% of people in the U.S. were middle income, 3% were low income and 2% were poor.
Compare that with the rest of the world, where 13% of people globally could be considered middle income in 2011. Most people in the world were either low income (56%) or poor (15%), and relatively few were upper-middle income (9%) or high income (7%).
Don’t mess with success.
(Source: Pew Research Center analysis of data from the World Bank Povcalnet database)


List all the socialist countries that are so successful.


The “success” you are crowing about should be tempered by the following:

First of all, the 6.8 percent unemployment rate African-Americans experienced was exactly TWICE the White unemployment rate of 3.4 percent.

Differences in the employment-population ratio suggest that some African-Americans have stopped looking for work because they don’t think they can find it. When the Black unemployment rate is adjusted to reflect these realities, it is closer to 10 percent than to the 6.8 percent.

The average White family has a $65,000 income, compared to just $39,000 for African-Americans. The average African-American household has just $17,000 in wealth, compared to $171,000 for Whites.


Canada is certainly more socialist than the US and it is no less successful than the US. Is any politician proposing to make the US more socialist than Canada?


Please post statistics on education and on children out of wedlock.

These data matter.


Saskatchewan had socialism from 1944 to 1964. Over that period, 25% of Saskatchewan’s population left, mostly to go to capitalist Alberta. It was a major exodus and contributed heavily to the abandonment of the practice in 1964. While the population of other provinces grew 60%, Saskatchewan stagnated.

So what story are you talking about? The story of the young people, businesses, and entrepreneurs who left Saskatchewan to move next door to Alberta?

Or are you referring to the fact that Albertans enjoyed 32% more disposal income on average than residents of Saskatchewan during those years?

Or that Alberta had lower unemployment than Saskatchewan? How is that even possible? Because socialism has false promises.

If by “success story” you mean “not Venezuela,” then sure. But not a success story by absolute standards.

A few sources, as requested:

Socialism in Saskatchewan | W. Ross Thatcher

Also interesting but require a JSTOR subscription:

Agrarian Socialism in Saskatchewan and Oklahoma: Short-Run Radicalism, Long-Run Conservatism

Socialists, Populists, Resources, and the Divergent Development of Alberta and Saskatchewan


First explain why my data do not matter.


And one of the first things that Saskatchewan did was implement Medicare, which is a program you support.

Or have you changed your stripes and now agree with me that medicare should be eliminated immediately? The question is, are you a socialist, or are you not a socialist?


I’ve often wondered why people put countries under the umbrella of socialist because they have more social programs than we do.

Please name a country where the government owns the means of production. That is socialism, and that is already warned against by the Church.

But, the Church (once again in Her wisdom) does not snub Universal heath care, affordable education at a University level, or social assist with poverty by way of monetary means or programs. Why? Because She wrote the book on the wrongs of Socialism and Unbridled Capitalism but no one will address it. Ever!~and I wonder if persons have read it too.

The Church speaks out about the grave concern regarding the great divide between wealth and poverty.

It finds capitalism an acceptable economical system of trade, but it must be within a judicial system of checks and balances, not left completely to itself without regulation or we have the rape of societies with medications so costly (one example) that the elderly are forced to forego them vs purchase them…Capitalism, if you follow the teachings of the Church does not endorse unbridled capitalism, for excellent reason. When left to it’s own demise it excludes those that could benefit from it due to greed, and our regulations prove it. In the United States we regulate “reactively” not “proactively”…In other words we have had to regulate the market not because someone might become greedy, but because someone did.

The Church has been right, over and over again. Her Wisdom and the encyclicals are great pearls of wisdom as the Church lived through these ages and was the spokesperson for the times, yet remain relevant today.


I descended from a long line of Democrat Party voters. After registering and voting Democrat for decades, I then faced a choice that was not all that difficult. When the Democratic platform veered left to wholly support (and promote) abortion on demand, I realized that the killing of innocent prenatal human life could not accord with my Catholic faith.

This is a life-or-death issue. It overshadows all others.

After deciding that I did not want to be complicit with these acts (or judged to be), no matter how remotely, I promptly re-registered as an independent.

Lord, have mercy on our nation.


I whole heartedly agree teresa63. I support life, but there is the common sense that says there are instances where I must support what I stand for. And, when I say “support” that must be literally.
I too went independent.


Values-Voters who won’t take the time to vote on Tuesday’s Election Day will have no one to blame but ourselves. The good thing is that we already know that the Democratic Party (if they get enough votes to take control of Congress) will continue to fight for all things abortion, Democrats will entirely STOP all of President Trump’s great Constitutional Judicial nominations, Democrats will have hearing-after-hearing and subpoenas to attack enemies of the Democratic Party’s Leftist agenda (see the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings circus and hearings for Trump’s cabinet nominees). We know that a Democratic Party-controlled Congress will open the borders to all unvetted illegal immigrants (Democrats in the Senate voted 43 to 4 against a bill that would have removed federal funding from so-called sanctuary cities who refuse to enforce federal immigration policy). And we know that Democrats will continue their fight against religious liberty (abortions being forced on doctors, school hirings, girls being forced to accept biological boys in their facilities and sports, etc.).
For those who have less-than-perfect Republican candidates (other than Dan Lipinski’s Republican Illinois opponent), it’s better to hold our noses and still vote for a less-than-perfect Republican.


I’ve noticed that most pro-life candidates are also the ones who are stronger on religious liberty, protecting our citizens, and largely Free Market economic system that best fights poverty.


You already said that.


Thank you!


Can you name a pro-life candidate that does not support socialist economic policies?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit